For more information, visit: www.pirc.info/jobs.

Common Cause Internships is a post from: Common Cause

How to use the Common Cause perspective in the design of dialogue processes? That was what we discussed through a case study at Common Cause Brussels on 19 April.

The case was a real example of an EU-funded research project that is to start soon with the aim of fostering better dialogue between R&D communities and civil society on low-carbon energy technologies that sometimes are controversial, such as wind turbines, CCS or power transmission lines. One of the first big tasks in the project will be to conduct a large number of interviews in 10 European countries with different types of stakeholders on their opinions on these technologies and the low-carbon energy transition in general.

We talked about how priming of intrinsic values (such as asking people to think of their early environmental experiences, asking them to explain their answers to their children, or organising meetings in nature) could help foster greater (intrinsic) common ground and better dialogue. We also concluded that very strictly structured interviews could most effectively be done online, whilst workshops or focus groups should be used to collect and compare views in a more open manner. Bálint Balázs from the Environmental Social Science Research Group at the Szent István University in Hungary told us about their good experience of interviewing forest-owners out in their forests, where they had the opportunity to tell their personal stories which tell more about their values than structured interviews in an office.

The next meeting of Common Cause will use a case not directly related to the environment: Patricia Scherer of Workability Europe (whose topic is people with disabilities in the labour market) will generously host the next meeting on 24 May, 1:00-2:30pm. Their address is Rue d’Egmont 15, 1050 Brussels. If interested, please drop a line to eivind@bellona.org. You can also stay in touch by joining the Facebook group “Common Cause Brussels” (if you don’t find it, click on this link).

Finally, two other initiatives that may be of interest to folks particularly in Brussels:
1) Thanks to Sergi Corbalan for sharing a link to “The imagination club” https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/imaginationclubbrussels -

2) Bálint Balázs is involved in the project CONVERGENCE http://www.convergeproject.org, with objectives quite overlapping with Common Cause. They organise a meeting in Brussels 14-16 May with a fairly open invitation: If interested please drop a line to balazs.balint@essrg.hu

Common Cause In Dialogue Processes – Update From Brussels is a post from: Common Cause

The room was filled with an intergenerational group – and after finishing exactly on time, I was one of the first to leave as nearly everyone stayed behind to keep talking: a sure sign of success!

We spent most of the evening reflecting on what campaigning looks like with a Common Cause approach, using the following themes as guides for our conversation.

• Relationships
• Experiences
• Stories
• Better measurement
• Internal and external change
• Movement, as well as organisational, strategy

Some of the learnings that emerged included;

• The need to build friendships between organisations in order for us to collaborate. Trust is fundamental to successful coalition work.
• As campaigners we often move from one campaign to the next without taking time to do evaluation, meaning we make the same mistakes in the next campaign.
• The need to create community at an organisation scale – how do we create a common culture that guides our work?
• The biggest campaign successes are often not brand-based, but movement-led. There’s a conflict here with funding and membership recruitment.

Thanks to Justin for organising, and to Ulrik for taking the Bristol gathering forward!

Common Cause in Bristol is a post from: Common Cause

In 2009, the children’s marketing sector was worth £100bn – and it’s still growing. A significant portion of this total is spent on food marketing, predominantly promoting energy dense, low-nutrient food and beverages – typically unhealthy for children, but marketed to exaggerate health claims – and messaging (often with the help of celebrities) to suggest popularity, performance and mood.

There is worrying evidence of the impact advertising can have on children’s dietary behaviours. One study, for example, showed that children exposed to junk food advertising ate 45% more junk food than children not exposed during the trial[i]. Furthermore, the Hastings Review found evidence that advertising can have an effect upon the nutritional knowledge, food preferences, purchasing behaviour and diet of children.

But can marketing influence beyond behaviours to our values and identity?

All people hold a variety of values or guiding principles which influence their beliefs, attitudes and behaviours and shape their cultural identity. The importance with which we hold different values, can be increased or decreased by the environment around us, for example by the messages we receive whilst online or by witnessing the behaviours of our friends. Whilst values are relatively deep-seated within adults, young people who are still developing tend to be a lot more open to shifting values.

Waste Watch recently explored this idea through a new report: Addressing the social and cultural impact of marketing towards young people. We did so through the lens of food marketing, but found that the results and concerns about the impacts of marketing towards young people were universal, and likely to be self-reinforcing across sectors, including through the marketing of food, clothing and gadgets.

Evidence suggests that increasing marketing, both explicit and more subtle through the use of ‘stealth marketing’ techniques, may be harming both our children and the environment. The materialistic values that underpin consumption of goods and services are linked to lower well-being, and families on lower incomes may be particularly susceptible. This is especially worrying, given that the UK came bottom of 20 countries in child wellbeing in a recent UNICEF report. More materialistic values also appear to lead to higher consumptive habits and less concern about social and environmental issues.

So what can we do about it?

Whilst addressing the commercialisation of childhood is often seen as an impossible battle, it is also one that is supported both by parents and government. David Cameron has publically advocated for a tightening of policy on both commercialisation and sexualisation of children which commenced with last year’s governmental review by Reg Bailey. We have seen little evidence since, however, of policy action and support to address the cultural and social impact of increasing marketing in the lives of young people.

Our report presents a number of recommendations, including:

• furthering the evidence base and shifting the burden of proof onto the industry;
• building co-regulation across advertising;
• reducing marketing in public spaces, especially at school;
• tackling concerns about digital and stealth marketing;
• ensuring healthy food is accessible to deprived families; and
• building awareness of the impact of marketing upon the cultural values of young people.

Waste Watch, PIRC, and other organisations inspired by Common Cause want to broaden the debate about how advertising strengthens potentially damaging values, especially amongst young people. We are planning to hold a stakeholder event later this spring to connect organisations working on social and environmental issues to work and campaign using a more united voice on the links between marketing, cultural values and identity and the associated social and environmental issues.

This will start by asking the question: Are the values we instill in our children leading us towards a sustainable future?

Tim can be contacted at tim.burns@wastewatch.org.uk

---

[i] Harris, J.L.  Bargh, J. A. and Brownell, K. D. 2009 Priming Effects of Television Food Advertising on Eating Behavior. Health Psychology, 28 (4), pp.404–413.

The Cultural Impact of Marketing on Young People

Tim Burns, WasteWatch | April 11, 2012

This report by Waste Watch presents an initial evidence review of the social and cultural effects of food marketing aimed at children, as a contribution to a wider discussion about the impacts that advertising has on our values, attitudes and behaviours.

337.5 KB | 26 Downloads

Are the values we instill in our children leading us towards a sustainable future? is a post from: Common Cause

Too true. There has been an inexorable rise in the use of the term ‘consumer’ over the past forty years – a stark trend evident in both newspapers and books. But whilst the rise of consumerism has been well-documented, evidence of its negative impacts have proven harder to pin down. Does it really matter that we’re all consumers now?

A new study released last week suggests that it does matter – profoundly. The paper, ‘Cuing consumerism’, published in the journal Psychological Science, presents startling evidence that treating people as consumers demonstrably increases their materialistic outlook, lowers their wellbeing and makes them less co-operative.

Through a series of empirical tests, the researchers sought to explore the psychological effects of “omnipresent consumer cues” – such as advertising, and the “common media practice [of] using the term consumers to refer generically to the public … as opposed to using other potential generic terms, such as … citizens.”

In one test, half the participants were shown depictions of luxury consumer goods, the other half pictures of natural scenes devoid of consumer products. They were then asked to complete a series of questionnaires, commonly used by social psychologists to assess materialistic concerns. The researchers concluded that “merely viewing desirable consumer goods resulted in increases in materialistic concerns”. Furthermore, those who had viewed the luxury goods also “reported significantly higher levels of depressed affect and anxious affect (and marginally greater self-dissatisfaction) than participants in the control condition.”

In another test, the researchers sought to set up “a task-framing manipulation analogous to the media’s consumer-framing of the daily news.” Participants were asked to complete a survey, that was framed throughout either as a ‘Consumer Reaction Study’ or as a ‘Citizen Reaction Study’. Afterwards they were given a task in which they were asked to sort and associate themselves with certain words relating to social values. Those who had undertaken the Consumer Reaction Study “were faster to ‘approach’ words reflecting materialistic values, such as wealth, image and success”, than those in the control.

Further tests showed that “participants in the consumer-cue condition reported a stronger desire to outdo other people”, and, when presented with a scenario about water scarcity, “the consumer framing resulted in lower feelings of personal responsibility for dealing with the resource dilemma.” Most worryingly of all, the academics found that “thinking like a consumer… seemed to work against positive, cooperative engagement with other people.”

These are very significant findings, and should be required reading for policymakers and campaigners in every field. If we want to build a society whose members cooperate more, are less obsessed by material objects, take greater responsibility for tackling environmental problems and report higher levels of wellbeing, we need to start toning down the incessant appeals to people as ‘consumers’.  And we also need to start asking some searching questions about the compatibility of a system that constantly encourages materialistic values with the need to cut resource use and tackle climate change.

After all, it’s not just ever-present advertising and the mass media that encourage us to be consumers at every turn. It’s also the case that politicians and campaigners have often deployed this same terminology.

Over the past twenty years, for example, environment and development groups have championed ‘ethical consumerism’ and the need for us all to become ‘green consumers’. These efforts have clearly meant well and led to some important gains – like rising sales of Fairtrade and energy-efficient products, for example. But there are clearly dangers in expecting global poverty and the ecological crisis to be solved using shopping trolleys. What’s more, as this new study starkly shows, there is a real danger that advocates of ‘ethical consumerism’ undermine their own causes through their kow-towing to the dominant consumerist terminology of the age.

Knowing what we know now, it should be encumbent on politicians, journalists and campaigners to start turning the tide on consumerism. Politicians should take action against excessive advertising that seeks to turn even our kids into model consumers. Green activists could push for a new bill of rights enshrining what it means to hold environmental citizenship. A simple tweak to newspaper style guides could ensure journalists think twice before defaulting to the description of people as ‘consumers’.

Consuming is only part – a small part – of what it means to live in a civilised society. First and foremost, we need to become citizens, once more.

A version of this post first appeared on Shifting Grounds

Treating people as consumers boosts materialistic values is a post from: Common Cause

This was the question that we discussed last night at the 10:10 office in Camden. We heard four different stories from NGO staff who have tried to bring frames and values thinking into their organisation – with varying degrees of success and difficulty. Out of these conversations emerged some principles and patterns that we started to see within each of the stories, which we wanted to share.

• Find your allies – externally and internally, and start inviting people into the conversation. Use these external allies as leverage internally.
• Follow the energy – it doesn’t matter whether the person who is excited about it works in fundraising/policy/campaigns/programmes. Build on the energy that already exists.
• Convincing the top doesn’t mean change across the organisation – lobbying for support from senior management is helpful in terms of legitimacy and (sometimes) access to resource, but often has very little impact in terms of the work done by the rest of the organisation. Focus on where there’s enthusiasm, not seniority.
• Theory alone won’t convince people – have stories, case studies and examples at hand to illustrate what you’re advocating.
• Just Do It - nobody is going to give you permission to start doing it, so we have to lead beyond authority.
• It takes time.
• It takes courage.
• Create a story of continuity – find the elements of your work that already apply the principles of Common Cause and then create the red thread to what you want to do differently. A narrative that stresses complete breaks with the present can scare people and create unnecessary resistance to new ideas and practices.
• Keep learning – no resting on laurels!

Thanks to Dan, Andy and the 10:10 team for hosting us.

Campaigning With Common Cause – What Did We Learn? is a post from: Common Cause

What values do typical texts on EU climate change-motivated policy activate and how can we change them? That was the focus of the second Common Cause Brussels meeting on 7 March.

Most of us working with EU affairs in Brussels draft and edit texts trying to convince policy-makers to do this or that. At our meeting, we took one such draft text I had received that called for ambitious EU policies for decarbonising the power sector. What had struck me was how such texts – even with the most climate-friendly intentions – are permeated by appeals to “competitiveness”, “economic growth” and “energy security”.

It is quite obvious how these terms reflect power, achievement and security values – rather the opposite of the universalist values that need to be strengthened. So far, the way I have personally dealt with this is to replace meaningless and unhelpful words like “European competitiveness” (any economist will tell you that it is non-sense because floating exchange rates ensure that no currency zone has a permanent balance of payments surplus with other currency zones) or “energy security” (everybody seems to have their own interpretation of it) with more concrete and neutral words like “European prosperity/jobs” and “diverse energy supply”.

Such linguistic cleaning up or “de-mainstreaming” of unhelpful frames is one thing. But our discussion turned to the glaring gap in such climate-minded texts: Explanations of why we want to reduce emissions. Generally, the texts we deal with just refer to political goals like “80-95% emission reduction in the EU by 2050” as if it were an end in itself to comply with such political pledges. By not explaining why emission reductions are essential, we abstain from making appeals to universalist values like justice and equity for poorer countries, future generations and other species.

That will be one of the next things to try out, before our next meeting – due in the week of 9 April. Drop me a line if interested in joining!

Eivind Hoff – eivind@bellona.org

Applying Common Cause To EU Climate Jargon is a post from: Common Cause

Questions that we’re exploring:

• Do people who take on CC approach come to different political conclusions?
• How likely are politicians to respond to intrinsic values?
• How can NGO community engage with this at a more fundamental level – beyond external communications?
• How do we do work that we are not personally/organizationally mandated to do?

Ideas that are being planned/explored:

• The media – working to shift journalist’s values and/or creating social movements that get coverage through traditional means (conflict, personalities, etc).
• Bringing media influencers and decision-makers out of the office and into experiential learning in nature.
• Building the potential of a community of practice in Brussels.

If you’d like to be part of the Brussels Community of Interest – come along to the next meeting, scheduled for March 7th. Thank you to Eivind for organising us all!

In circle discussion - apologies for fuzzy quality

Common Cause In Brussels – What Did We Learn? is a post from: Common Cause

Clearly, we don’t have long to bring down greenhouse carbon dioxide emissions very markedly before we hit devastating levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – with profound, effectively irreversible, effects upon our climate. Often, when people ask “Do we have time to shift values?”, they are posing the question in the context of the urgency of addressing climate change. In this context, we need to effect major changes in how our economies are run, and we need to effect them very soon.

In formulating a response to the challenge posed by climate change, it is important to hold in mind that these reductions in greenhouse gas emissions need to be (i) sufficiently ambitious; (ii) made sufficiently soon; (iii) sufficiently durable to be maintained for a long time to come.

Implicit in the question “Do we have time to shift values?” is the belief that some alternative strategy could perhaps provide the requisite ambition and durability, and deliver these emissions reductions in a short time-frame. Also implicit is the suspicion that, while the strategy of ‘shifting values’ may be sufficiently ambitious and dependable, it is likely to take a long time. Too long.

This blog, then, provides some responses to this important question.

Does Common Cause advocate shifting values?

Recall that values are important at two different levels. Firstly, in terms of which values are ‘engaged’ at any particular point in time. It seems that almost everyone holds intrinsic values at some level. There is also evidence that the majority of people hold intrinsic values to be more important than extrinsic values. This understanding, which is consistent with the evidence from social psychology, challenges the more simplistic perspective that – whatever the subtleties – people can basically be grouped into clear categories according to their dominant values in a way that predicts their behaviours and attitudes. This may not be the perspective that social marketers who use values surveys to segment audiences intend to create. But this view is often implicit in what they do, and it creates conceptual barriers to the more nuanced understanding shared by most social psychologists.

So at one level, the approach that we advocate with Common Cause is not about shifting values so much as engaging intrinsic values – values that are already there in almost everyone. At this level, then, it is not a question about whether we have enough time. Intrinsic values are there to be engaged now. For more evidence that this is the case, see our recent report, Communicating bigger-than-self problems to extrinsically-oriented audiences. You can download it here.

At another level, of course, we do look forward to a future where space is opened up so that intrinsic values can be more readily expressed at a cultural level. If this happens, it will be as the inevitable result of the repeated engagement of intrinsic values in the here and now, and the careful design of public policies, social institutions and business practices to make it easier to express intrinsic values and to tackle factors which currently promote extrinsic values.

Does appealing to intrinsic values imply trade-offs?

The second assumption implicit in the “Do we have time?” question is that there is a trade-off involved in appealing to intrinsic values: that somehow appealing to intrinsic values in order to motivate pro-environmental concern is likely to be counterproductive. This leads to the conviction that we are faced with a choice between a long hard slog to change values – with no guarantee that we’ll ‘get there’ in the end – and settling for easier, smaller wins.

We don’t see things this way. We have presented a lot of evidence that intrinsic values may be quite the best way of motivating pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour. We have presented evidence, too, that these values can be engaged among audiences who are relatively more oriented towards extrinsic values. We also know that appeals to intrinsic values are less likely to lead to collateral damage (where people adopt a specific pro-environmental attitude or behaviour in one sphere, only to be more likely to adopt an anti-environmental attitude or behaviour in another – maybe many others). So intrinsic values may well be the most effective way of motivating pro-environmental change in the here-and-now.

We need durable and ambitious change

It is not enough that we achieve emissions reductions soon. We also need to achieve them at a very ambitious level, and in a durable way – year-in, year-out, for a very long time to come. Most seasoned environmentalists are only too aware that, firstly, even where there is political will for change, the scale of change achieved is woefully inadequate. They are also aware that even those policy changes that are made can prove to be all-too-easily reversed when, as a result of an economic downturn, or a change of government, or some political crisis, hard-won environmental provisions are unpicked.

Ambitious change – for example, change that pushes beyond the short-term business case for sustainable development – will be premised upon intrinsic values. Durable change will be premised on strengthening public consciousness of the imperative to care for future generations, or the world’s poor, or other species. It cannot be premised upon some proxy for these values.

Consider, for example, the dangers of appealing to energy security in order to promote investment in renewables. This imperative is just as likely to be pressed into service to justify new investment in coal, oil shales, or deep-water oil. But more than this, appealing to security values may well undermine opposing set of values that underpin people’s openness to change: something that appears crucial for any society willing to accept a rapid low-carbon transition.

Similarly, consider citizens who have been conditioned to think of short-term economic growth as being more important than long-term environmental sustainability. This is a perspective that is likely to be promoted by subjugating environmental need to economic needs. Such subjugation is implicit in premising action to address climate change upon ‘green growth’ or ‘the business case for sustainable development’ or ‘competitiveness in new environmental sectors’. Citizens who have been conditioned to think in this way are surely less likely to express outrage when environmental regulations are torn up in the pursuit of greater economic competitiveness.

The most durable environmental changes will be built upon a set of values consistent with environmental concern. They will be motivated by intrinsic values.

What sort of future do we want?

Happily, these intrinsic values are also associated with stronger friendships and communities, and higher levels of wellbeing. Let’s set aside, for a moment, the question of what level of climate change we can avert, and what level we must now adapt to as inevitable. If our responses to all social and environmental challenges, and the way we adapt to living with them, are premised upon an appeal to our intrinsic values, then it seems that these responses will be more humane, our communities stronger, and our individual lives more fulfilled.

Conclusion

Overall, then, we reject the assumptions underlying the question: ‘Do we have time to shift values?’ On the contrary, we don’t have time not to appeal to people’s intrinsic values. We must immediately begin the process of building an ambitious response to environmental challenges, premising this response on grounds that are dependable for the long-term.

Do we have time to shift values? is a post from: Common Cause

As part of that, we have put together an action learning process, which will take campaigners through a five month learning and innovation process.

Who is this for: Campaigners from UK-based medium/large NGOs who interact with the public and/or partner organisations. Each campaigner will need a colleague from their organisation to take part in the process – so that we have 20 campaigners from 10 NGOs. You’ll need to be willing to try new things inside your organisation and to take some risks. If you feel stuck in your work but believe in what’s possible – then this is for you.

When is it happening: Full days on 23rd February, 9-11th March, 12th April, 10th May, 14th June, 12th July. We’ll happily approach your NGO leadership with you to negotiate time to take part.

What is the cost: None, though we will be asking you to host trainings at your organisation (if there is room).

How many hours per week does it need: 2-4 hours a week for reading, sharing insights with your learning partner, and documenting the process.

Download the pdf with full details and details here.

If you’d like to take part or have any questions – please contact me (Casper ter Kuile).

caspertk@gmail.com

07912 491812

Campaigners – Join Our Action Learning Process is a post from: Common Cause